There is a lesson to be learned here....

TMT


March 20, 2008
The Affluent, Too, Couldn't Resist Adjustable Rates
By JANE BIRNBAUM
They took out adjustable-rate mortgages at the peak of the housing
bubble to buy homes they would otherwise not be able to afford. Or
they refinanced existing mortgages to take cash out. And now, two or
three years later, the day of reckoning is here.

These are not lower- and middle-income borrowers, but more affluent
consumers with annual incomes of $100,000 or more who are increasingly
being ensnared in the home mortgage crisis.

People in all income categories "are facing the shock of new payments
that can be twice as much as previous ones," said Susan M. Wachter,
professor of business and a real estate specialist at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Nor will falling interest rates help most of these homeowners, as
their low initial payments skyrocket and the worth of their homes
erodes, said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy at
the Consumer Federation of America.

According to Loan Performance, a unit of First American CoreLogic, a
real estate information company based in Santa Ana, Calif., about
870,000 borrowers took jumbo ARMs -- mortgages of $417,000 or more --
from 2005 to 2007.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, 8.10 percent were two or more payments
late, it found, while 2.62 percent were in the foreclosure process and
1.35 percent had been foreclosed. All the numbers were up from the
third quarter.


Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, predicted that
eventually 8 percent of these jumbo ARMs will be foreclosed. In the
first quarter of 2008, "the delinquency and foreclosure rate will
clearly be higher," he said.

Today's ARMs were "designed to fail, so you have to refinance," Ms.
Wachter said. "It shouldn't be surprising that values go up and down
in this kind of situation. And when you most need to refinance you
can't -- the crux of the crunch."

Jeffrey Conner, a San Francisco real estate lawyer, says he regularly
hears from his clients "that lenders assured them they could always
refinance."

So what are these homeowners to do now?

Refinancing requires some equity. Even if homeowners put a substantial
amount of money down, many have no equity because their homes are
worth less than they owe. In real estate parlance, their mortgages are
under water.

Richard Geller, founder of Mortgage Relief Formula, a for-profit
venture based in Fairfax, Va., that counsels troubled ARM borrowers,
said he received calls from affluent consumers in almost every major
metropolitan area. At the moment, Manhattan appears to be the only
exception in the weakening market, Mr. Geller said. "It's really late
in the schedule and will be the last place prices soften," he added.

The first step for distressed homeowners, said Rhonda Porter, a
certified mortgage planning specialist and broker in Seattle, is to
pull out their loan documents and see what they say.

Sean O'Toole, founder of ForeclosureRadar.com, which tracks California
foreclosures, divided borrowers into two camps. "If you have equity,
you have choices," he said. "If you don't, you have to work on a loan
modification with your lender."

Consumers with substantial equity, high credit scores and documented
income should be able to find conventional refinancing, he said.

Homeowners with at least 3 percent equity may qualify for refinancing
through the Federal Housing Administration. On March 6, it began
making loans up to $729,750, a new higher limit that expires Dec. 31
unless Congress extends it. Limits are 125 percent of median home
prices, by county. Consumers can find their local limits at
https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicost1.cfm.

To find a qualified lender or broker, consumers may call (800) CALL-
FHA, look in the Yellow Pages or visit www.fha.gov for the four
regional centers.

Loan modifications entail freezing or reducing interest rates and may
also include balance reductions.

"But if your payments are still going to be more than half your gross
income, the lenders won't do it because they figure you're going to
default later," Mr. Geller said. "It's not rational to dedicate your
life to making the next $5,000 monthly payment on an asset declining
in value."

Negotiating a loan modification means understanding that in most cases
"the lenders really don't want to force people into foreclosure
because that virtually guarantees large losses in the market," said
Dean Baker, an economist with the Center for Economic and Policy
Research in Washington.

"It's a game of chicken," Mr. Baker said. "And you can't play it
effectively unless you know what your risks are, including whether
lenders can come after your other assets if you walk away."

Borrowers should determine if they live in a state with nonrecourse
laws. In general, lenders in those states cannot pursue borrowers for
money owed. But these laws are complex and change often, so consulting
with a lawyer may be necessary, Mr. Geller said. He has compiled a
list of nonrecourse states at http://www.mortgagereliefformula.com/recourse.

Every affluent borrower who took an ARM has a different story.

In Oceanside, Calif., north of San Diego, people paid $650,000 to
$750,000 in 2003 and 2004 for row houses on Cleveland Street, said
Chris McBrearty, certified mortgage planning specialist, in Carlsbad,
Calif., who wrote many mortgages there. When prices for the houses
rose as high as $1.5 million in 2005, many of those people refinanced
with ARMs to take out cash, he said.

But while the borrowers had the best intentions, life -- job losses,
divorces, deaths -- changed their financial circumstances, Mr.
McBrearty said. Now, with a most recent listing at $920,000, "nothing
is selling on the street, and even for those with some equity, the
products needed to refinance such large loans are not out there."

One of those homeowners, a lawyer who spoke only on condition of
anonymity for professional reasons, said he refinanced his mortgage
with an ARM in January 2006 to take $510,000 out to invest in a hotel.
"I planned to run the hotel with my lovely wife," he said.

Their strategy was to sell the house after a couple of years, but when
they put it on the market in April 2007, there were no buyers. The
lawyer, now divorced, calculated that the mortgage payments, now
$6,200 a month, plus taxes consume 96 percent of his net income, which
includes occasional rent from vacationers who use the house. He lives
with relatives and sleeps on the floor.

"I don't regret what I did," he said. But a foreclosure would hurt his
career and finances, he said. "And I was raised to pay back what I
borrow."

His strategy now is to sell when prices revive. But that could take
time, because a bank just sold a neighbor's foreclosed home for
$850,000.

Elizabeth Hamilton, the maiden name of a Los Angeles real estate
consultant who did not want to be identified for professional reasons,
said she turned to a nonprofit housing counseling agency when she was
making no progress in persuading her lender to reduce the interest
rate for the ARM she took on her $1.5 million home. The introductory
rate was 7.9 percent for two years and payments were $6,541.

Now the interest rate is 10.25 percent and payments are $8,013. She
cannot afford the payments, she said, because her husband has died and
her income has fallen. "I need an interest rate reduction so I can get
myself and children back on track," she said.

A housing counselor, certified by the federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development, quickly got through to her servicer's loss
mitigation department, where loan modifications are made. Now Ms.
Hamilton needs to provide more personal financial information.

The best no- or low-cost housing advisers have contacts with lenders'
decision makers. "Our view is you need counselors who will negotiate
for you," said Bruce Dorpalen, director of counseling for Acorn
Housing, a nonprofit counseling group.

Mr. Geller said he had heard of just one loan balance reduction won by
a borrower.

That borrower, a real estate consultant in California who did not want
to be identified because he feared angering his lender, said he used
his understanding of state law to negotiate the refinancing. He bought
a condominium two years ago for $450,000 and invested another $50,000
for improvements. His ARM had a 5.5 percent initial rate that was soon
resetting to 7.25 percent. But his condo is now worth only about
$350,000.

His lender agreed to give him a 6 percent fixed-rate mortgage and, he
said, to knock $135,000 off the principal.

The agreement came only after he stopped paying his mortgage for two
months. "I am very happy and grateful to the lender because what I owe
on my condo now is in line with its worth," he said. "I'm ecstatic."

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


These are not lower- and middle-income borrowers, but more affluent
consumers with annual incomes of $100,000 or more who are increasingly
being ensnared in the home mortgage crisis.

People in all income categories "are facing the shock of new payments
that can be twice as much as previous ones," said Susan M. Wachter,
professor of business and a real estate specialist at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Nor will falling interest rates help most of these homeowners, as
their low initial payments skyrocket and the worth of their homes
erodes, said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy at
the Consumer Federation of America.

These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took advantage
of them? Greed. It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to the
undoing of many. The banks are blameless.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2008-03-22, Wes wrote:
These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took advantage
of them? Greed. It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to the
undoing of many. The banks are blameless.

I think that traits like propensity to spend vs. save, are basic
personality traits and are not really changeable by education.

I actually agree with the remarks that you made. People who borrowed
too much, knew everything and took the risks willingly.

i

"Ignoramus21938" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-22, Wes wrote:
These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level
of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped
out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took
advantage
of them? Greed. It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to
the
undoing of many. The banks are blameless.

I think that traits like propensity to spend vs. save, are basic
personality traits and are not really changeable by education.

I actually agree with the remarks that you made. People who borrowed
too much, knew everything and took the risks willingly.

But they didn't "know everything," even if they could follow the legal
obscurantism in the contracts. What they didn't know was the same thing that
everyone else in the US, and in the financial community all around the world
didn't know, which is that, for the first time in history, American house
prices were going to decline on a nationwide business.

It never happened before. If they had asked their banker, or anyone else who
follows it, what the chances were they'd be upside-down on their mortgage in
a year or two or three, making it impossible for them to flip their house
and come out ahead if the mortgage became too much for them, the bankers
would have laughed in their faces. The experts "knew" that it couldn't
happen, because it has never happened before.

So it doesn't make much sense to say these people knew what the risks were.
No one else did, either.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It never happened before. If they had asked their banker, or anyone else who
follows it, what the chances were they'd be upside-down on their mortgage in
a year or two or three, making it impossible for them to flip their house
and come out ahead if the mortgage became too much for them, the bankers
would have laughed in their faces. The experts "knew" that it couldn't
happen, because it has never happened before.


Ed, anyone that finances a car should know the dangeors of being upside
down. Say you buy your new wizbang 4000 and it gets creamed coming off the
lot. Most insurance companies are going to want to pay off on what it is
worth vs what you paid.

A less dramatic example is that you drive your wizbang 4000, 30,000 miles a
year. Long before you make your 5 years of payments you are seriously
upside down since vehicle values are set by a combination of miles and
condition.

Should we blame the bank for loaning money on a vehicle that decreases in
value quicker than the amortization schedule?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It never happened before. If they had asked their banker, or anyone else
who
follows it, what the chances were they'd be upside-down on their mortgage
in
a year or two or three, making it impossible for them to flip their house
and come out ahead if the mortgage became too much for them, the bankers
would have laughed in their faces. The experts "knew" that it couldn't
happen, because it has never happened before.


Ed, anyone that finances a car should know the dangeors of being upside
down.

Sure, on a car. Not on a house. You could have asked any broker or banker, a
year ago, what the chances were you'd get in trouble that way. They'd laugh
you out of the place.

First, they would tell you what I said above. They they'd tell you that once
you'd made two or three years of payments, you'd qualify for a fixed-rate
mortgage before the balloon came due on (what they might call) your "bridge"
loan. Then you could look at all the statistics and see that they're dead
right. Only they weren't, for the first time ever.

Say you buy your new wizbang 4000 and it gets creamed coming off the
lot. Most insurance companies are going to want to pay off on what it is
worth vs what you paid.

That's not the way home insurance works, Wes. Cars are not houses.


A less dramatic example is that you drive your wizbang 4000, 30,000 miles
a
year. Long before you make your 5 years of payments you are seriously
upside down since vehicle values are set by a combination of miles and
condition.

Should we blame the bank for loaning money on a vehicle that decreases in
value quicker than the amortization schedule?

Houses are not cars. If you told a mortgage banker, two years ago, that
there was going to be a nationwide decline in house prices, coupled with a
lending crisis and a credit crunch, he would have told you that you were
nuts.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 22, 12:39*pm, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

These are not lower- and middle-income borrowers, but more affluent
consumers with annual incomes of $100,000 or more who are increasingly
being ensnared in the home mortgage crisis.

People in all income categories "are facing the shock of new payments
that can be twice as much as previous ones," said Susan M. Wachter,
professor of business and a real estate specialist at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Nor will falling interest rates help most of these homeowners, as
their low initial payments skyrocket and the worth of their homes
erodes, said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy at
the Consumer Federation of America.

These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took advantage
of them? *Greed. *It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to the
undoing of many. *The banks are blameless.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

"...you and your ilk...?"

You are mistaken...I am not a Bushbot.

Hmm...so when these banks go bust and take you with them...will you be
saying the same thing?

When your property taxes go through the roof to compensate for these
losses, will you be as understanding?

I think you are slow to catch on...the banks have taken advantage of
you...the depositor...by lending your money with little chance of
getting it..and the interest back.

TMT

On Mar 22, 1:25*pm, Ignoramus21938 ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.
21938.invalid wrote:
On 2008-03-22, Wes wrote:

These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took advantage
of them? *Greed. *It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to the
undoing of many. *The banks are blameless.

I think that traits like propensity to spend vs. save, are basic
personality traits and are not really changeable by education.

I actually agree with the remarks that you made. People who borrowed
too much, knew everything and took the risks willingly.

i

I would add that includes people who lent too much, knew everything
and took the risks willingly also.

So why are we bailing them out..i.e. Bears Stearns?

TMT

On Mar 22, 6:31*pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
It never happened before. If they had asked their banker, or anyone else who
follows it, what the chances were they'd be upside-down on their mortgage in
a year or two or three, making it impossible for them to flip their house
and come out ahead if the mortgage became too much for them, the bankers
would have laughed in their faces. The experts "knew" that it couldn't
happen, because it has never happened before.

Ed, anyone that finances a car should know the dangeors of being upside
down. *Say you buy your new wizbang 4000 and it gets creamed coming off the
lot. *Most insurance companies are going to want to pay off on what it is
worth vs what you paid. *

A less dramatic example is that you drive your wizbang 4000, 30,000 miles a
year. *Long before you make your 5 years of payments you are seriously
upside down since vehicle values are set by a combination of miles and
condition.

Should we blame the bank for loaning money on a vehicle that decreases in
value quicker than the amortization schedule? *

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

They will lend money until the borrowers don't borrow...and then they
will change their ways to drum up business.

TMT

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Sure, on a car. Not on a house. You could have asked any broker or banker, a
year ago, what the chances were you'd get in trouble that way. They'd laugh
you out of the place.

First, they would tell you what I said above. They they'd tell you that once
you'd made two or three years of payments, you'd qualify for a fixed-rate
mortgage before the balloon came due on (what they might call) your "bridge"
loan. Then you could look at all the statistics and see that they're dead
right. Only they weren't, for the first time ever.


Okay, try this. You buy a new house, the overall market does not go down
but when you go to refinance the banks appraiser notices a crack house next
door and doesn't think your house's market value is high enough to secure
the loan. By your logic, the bank should forgive principle since the house
is not worth far less than when it was originally purchased.

The bank loans money, the borrower agrees to pay based on the terms of the
contract. Doesn't matter what the market is doing, you borrowed, you owe.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Houses are not cars. If you told a mortgage banker, two years ago, that
there was going to be a nationwide decline in house prices, coupled with a
lending crisis and a credit crunch, he would have told you that you were
nuts.

If I believed that, I sure wouldn't have signed up for a house going down
the skids or accepted a variable rate loan.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


"...you and your ilk...?"

You are mistaken...I am not a Bushbot.

Hmm...so when these banks go bust and take you with them...will you be
saying the same thing?

When your property taxes go through the roof to compensate for these
losses, will you be as understanding?

I think you are slow to catch on...the banks have taken advantage of
you...the depositor...by lending your money with little chance of
getting it..and the interest back.

TMT


You sound like you actually WANT the banks to bust.

Why is that?

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Sure, on a car. Not on a house. You could have asked any broker or banker,
a
year ago, what the chances were you'd get in trouble that way. They'd
laugh
you out of the place.

First, they would tell you what I said above. They they'd tell you that
once
you'd made two or three years of payments, you'd qualify for a fixed-rate
mortgage before the balloon came due on (what they might call) your
"bridge"
loan. Then you could look at all the statistics and see that they're dead
right. Only they weren't, for the first time ever.


Okay, try this. You buy a new house, the overall market does not go down
but when you go to refinance the banks appraiser notices a crack house
next
door and doesn't think your house's market value is high enough to secure
the loan. By your logic, the bank should forgive principle since the
house
is not worth far less than when it was originally purchased.

First off, I haven't said what banks should do, or what the government
should do. It's beyond my knowledge and I'm studying the subject right now .
I do (or did) know how mortgages work, though, and the basic situation is
not that hard to figure out.

Secondly, every day you walk out of your door you're taking a chance that
something really bad won't happen. That's true about your investments, your
chances of getting hit by a truck, and so on. House buyers can't buy without
some risk of some kind, and some go under and lose their houses all the
time.

But that doesn't cause the credit markets to dry up, nor does it cause
average house prices to drop throughout the country (curiously, not in my
town; prices took a one-month hiatus but now they're going up, but that's
another story). Even if a few people get it all wrong and come up losers,
the market usually isn't much affected by that. This time, we have a perfect
storm: just as those people are getting in a bind, new mortgages are drying
up, and prices have dropped enough that they're upside down on their
mortgages.

Nobody anticipated that. Not the experts, not the banks, and not the
government. It's a crisis because there's no way out -- except that some of
these crap mortgages were written in such a way that a home owner can just
walk out of an upside-down situation and turn the keys over to the bank,
with no further repurcussions. That amazes me, but that's what the papers
say. The brokers are calling it "key mail." You open the bank's mail, and
there are house keys in the envelopes. d8-)


The bank loans money, the borrower agrees to pay based on the terms of the
contract. Doesn't matter what the market is doing, you borrowed, you owe.

Sure. Unless you can't, which is something that people and businesses
sometimes face. It's what happens afterwards that's causing all the trouble.
In a normal market, even during a downturn, most of those people would have
been able to get out by selling their houses. Now there aren't enough buyers
because the buyers can't get mortgages; prices are dropping, and the buyers
who *can* get a mortgage are waiting it out. I would, too.

This wouldn't have happened in the first place if the mortgage lenders
hadn't fallen all over each other to give mortgages with practically no
money down. That's bad banking. It's NOT necessarily bad borrowing.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Houses are not cars. If you told a mortgage banker, two years ago, that
there was going to be a nationwide decline in house prices, coupled with a
lending crisis and a credit crunch, he would have told you that you were
nuts.

If I believed that, I sure wouldn't have signed up for a house going down
the skids or accepted a variable rate loan.

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 22, 5:23*pm, "Ed Huntress"

Houses are not cars. If you told a mortgage banker, two years ago, that
there was going to be a nationwide decline in house prices, coupled with a
lending crisis and a credit crunch, he would have told you that you were
nuts.

--
Ed Huntress

If you get your financial advice from a mortgage broker, I will tell
you that you are nuts.

NASA has used the same type of logic. The fact that ice falling off
the fuel tanks has not significantly damaged the heat shields ten
times in a row , does not mean that it is safe to ignore it.

The fact that housing has gone up and not declined for twenty years ,
does not mean that it can't.

When every one believes there is a sure fire way to make money, it
ceases to work that way.

Dan

On Mar 22, 5:29*pm, Too_Many_Tools

I think you are slow to catch on...the banks have taken advantage of
you...the depositor...by lending your money with little chance of
getting it..and the interest back.

TMT

Are you insane! The banks take advantage of you by loaning money with
little change of getting it back?

Why don't you take.advantage of me. You can send me money, and I
promise not to pay you back.

Dan

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.


Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. I just do not see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions.

You seem to be endorsing the idea that we are NOT responisible for our
actions.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 5:23 pm, "Ed Huntress"

Houses are not cars. If you told a mortgage banker, two years ago, that
there was going to be a nationwide decline in house prices, coupled with
a
lending crisis and a credit crunch, he would have told you that you were
nuts.

--
Ed Huntress

If you get your financial advice from a mortgage broker, I will tell
you that you are nuts.

Well, why don't you tell us who got it right, Dan? What crank do you listen
to who would have told you that there was going to be a subprime mortgage
crises, provoked by a mortgage industry that was giving out ridiculous
loans, with prices dropping and buyers pulling out because of credit was
tied up by a collapse of derivatives that were collateralized by bundles of
those subprime mortgages, rated AAA by S&P and Moody's, which every major
investment bank (except Goldman Sachs) was buying like candy and which was
supported by the most sophisticated and most successful financial network in
the history of mankind?

Are you going to tell us that YOU knew it, fer chrissake?

NASA has used the same type of logic. The fact that ice falling off
the fuel tanks has not significantly damaged the heat shields ten
times in a row , does not mean that it is safe to ignore it.

The fact that housing has gone up and not declined for twenty years ,
does not mean that it can't.

Duh...thank you, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback. We've *never* had a housing
decline like this in the history of the US.

When every one believes there is a sure fire way to make money, it
ceases to work that way.

I'll make sure to write that in my book of aphorisms.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Nobody anticipated that. Not the experts, not the banks, and not the
government. It's a crisis because there's no way out -- except that some of
these crap mortgages were written in such a way that a home owner can just
walk out of an upside-down situation and turn the keys over to the bank,
with no further repurcussions. That amazes me, but that's what the papers
say. The brokers are calling it "key mail." You open the bank's mail, and
there are house keys in the envelopes. d8-)

You gotta be kidding me. Any banker that wrote a contract where the
borrower can 'walk away' should be institutionalized for they are not
competent to care for themselves.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions
flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.


Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. I just do not
see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions.

Well, they shouldn't. The reason they are is that the rest of us will wind
up paying more if they don't. There's a good analysis of it in this week's
_The Economist_. They say that the bailout will cost about $300 billion,
and, if it works, will save the rest of us about $1.2 trillion.

That's why we're bailing them. But Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Dept.
are already working on new regulations for the unregulated part of the
finance industry, and, particulalry if we have Dems running the show next
year, they'll probably clamp down like there's no tomorrow. Likely they'll
clamp down *too* hard.


You seem to be endorsing the idea that we are NOT responisible for our
actions.

Jesus, Wes, don't turn into another one of those guys who can't distinguish
a few facts from an entire ideology. We have enough of those around here
already.

Focus on the facts. Forget your philosophy. When you have all the facts and
you're able to look at them objectively, you can cook up a philisophy about
them if you're so disposed. Right now, all the philosophies have turned to
crap. It's not the time to commit suicide for the entire economy because
you're worried about "moral hazard." The time for that has passed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 22, 7:22*pm, "Ed Huntress"

Well, why don't you tell us who got it right, Dan? What crank do you listen
to who would have told you that there was going to be a subprime mortgage
crises, provoked by a mortgage industry that was giving out ridiculous
loans, with prices dropping and buyers pulling out because of credit was
tied up by a collapse of derivatives that were collateralized by bundles of
those subprime mortgages, rated AAA by S&P and Moody's, which every major
investment bank (except Goldman Sachs) was buying like candy and which was
supported by the most sophisticated and most successful financial network in
the history of mankind?

Are you going to tell us that YOU knew it, fer chrissake?

NASA has used the same type of logic. *The fact that ice falling off
the fuel tanks has not significantly damaged the heat shields ten
times in a row , does not mean that it is safe to ignore it.
The fact that housing has gone up and not declined for twenty years ,
does not mean that it can't.

Duh...thank you, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback. We've *never* had a housing
decline like this in the history of the US.

When every one believes there is a sure fire way to make money, it
ceases to work that way.

I'll make sure to write that in my book of aphorisms.

--
Ed Huntress

You may not believe it, but I did not buy any houses with a plan on
flipping them in a few years. My wife told me of friends of hers that
were buying houses to resell, and I told her that when housewifes are
doing things like that, it is the wrong time to do it.

I think we had a similar drop in house prices in 1929. Even though
you say it never happened.

I think you will find that someone already said pretty much what I
said in the book
" The Madness of Crowds ". It is not a thought that is orginal with
me.

Dan

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Nobody anticipated that. Not the experts, not the banks, and not the
government. It's a crisis because there's no way out -- except that some
of
these crap mortgages were written in such a way that a home owner can just
walk out of an upside-down situation and turn the keys over to the bank,
with no further repurcussions. That amazes me, but that's what the papers
say. The brokers are calling it "key mail." You open the bank's mail, and
there are house keys in the envelopes. d8-)

You gotta be kidding me. Any banker that wrote a contract where the
borrower can 'walk away' should be institutionalized for they are not
competent to care for themselveS.

That's what they say. Remember that these are not banks that are writing the
mortgages, or, if they are, they aren't planning to hold the paper. They
sell them, they get bundled with enough solid mortgages to get a AAA rating,
and they morph their way through the international financial system -- the
unregulated part of it. The original lenders don't give a damn what happens
to them after that.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 7:22 pm, "Ed Huntress"

Well, why don't you tell us who got it right, Dan? What crank do you
listen
to who would have told you that there was going to be a subprime mortgage
crises, provoked by a mortgage industry that was giving out ridiculous
loans, with prices dropping and buyers pulling out because of credit was
tied up by a collapse of derivatives that were collateralized by bundles
of
those subprime mortgages, rated AAA by S&P and Moody's, which every major
investment bank (except Goldman Sachs) was buying like candy and which
was
supported by the most sophisticated and most successful financial network
in
.. the history of mankind?

NASA has used the same type of logic. The fact that ice falling off
the fuel tanks has not significantly damaged the heat shields ten
times in a row , does not mean that it is safe to ignore it.
The fact that housing has gone up and not declined for twenty years ,
does not mean that it can't.

Duh...thank you, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback. We've *never* had a
housing
decline like this in the history of the US.

When every one believes there is a sure fire way to make money, it
ceases to work that way.

I'll make sure to write that in my book of aphorisms.

--
Ed Huntress

You may not believe it, but I did not buy any houses with a plan on
flipping them in a few years. My wife told me of friends of hers that
were buying houses to resell, and I told her that when housewifes are
doing things like that, it is the wrong time to do it.

Oh, I believe you. I'm cautious that way, too. But you and I are probably
more risk-averse than any serious investor, or any really successful one,
because you can't be excessively risk-averse and make out.

But we aren't talking about house-flippers who are getting in all the
trouble. Most of them are first-time buyers. They're not very sophisticated
and the mortgage lenders offered them a deal they could hardly refuse.

I think we had a similar drop in house prices in 1929. Even though
you say it never happened.

*I* didn't say it. Barron's, and Bloomberg, and The Economist are saying it.

I think you will find that someone already said pretty much what I
said in the book
" The Madness of Crowds ". It is not a thought that is orginal with
me.

Dan

There's always a book that said everything. There's always a contrarian who
got it right. That's why contrarians write books: they only have to get it
right once, and they're famous. Everyone will forget that they got it all
wrong 99 other times.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions
flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.


Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. I just do not
see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions.

Well, they shouldn't. The reason they are is that the rest of us will wind
up paying more if they don't. There's a good analysis of it in this week's
_The Economist_. They say that the bailout will cost about $300 billion,
and, if it works, will save the rest of us about $1.2 trillion.

Gee, wonder if the writer has ties to the banking industry? Just pointing
out that it may sound good but are you sure?


That's why we're bailing them. But Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Dept.
are already working on new regulations for the unregulated part of the
finance industry, and, particulalry if we have Dems running the show next
year, they'll probably clamp down like there's no tomorrow. Likely they'll
clamp down *too* hard.


You seem to be endorsing the idea that we are NOT responisible for our
actions.

Jesus, Wes, don't turn into another one of those guys who can't distinguish
a few facts from an entire ideology. We have enough of those around here
already.

Ed, there is right and there is wrong. You honor your obligations to the
best of your ablitity.


Focus on the facts. Forget your philosophy. When you have all the facts and
you're able to look at them objectively, you can cook up a philisophy about
them if you're so disposed. Right now, all the philosophies have turned to
crap. It's not the time to commit suicide for the entire economy because
you're worried about "moral hazard." The time for that has passed.

I'm not tracking you. The banks with the bad loans should not be taking the
keys, they should be working on ways to float the loans until better times.
The borrowers should be paying as much as they can and we ride this monster
trying to stay clear of the ditch.

It is like a renter that doesn't have the full payment for rent so he
doesn't pay anything instead of ponying up what he has. This whole thing
seems to have a trailer trash mentality on honoring obligations.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Hawke" wrote:

It's clear that you don't understand why it's wrong to let all these people
go into foreclosure. The only way you'll get it is if a bunch of them
foreclose in your neighborhood. After you see what that does to the value of
your home, if you have one, then maybe you'll see why it's not such a dandy
idea to let millions of home go into foreclosure at the same time all over
the country. What it'll do to home values across the country won't be
pretty. Maybe, and I say maybe you'll get it when a house on your street is
foreclosed on. But probably not.

I'm never planning on moving. 20+ years and staying. Actually if my
property value went down, my property taxes would eventually have to drop.

People that get overjoyed about increases in the value of their primary
domicile are nuts. It costs them money.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions
flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at
a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.


Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. I just do not
see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions.

Well, they shouldn't. The reason they are is that the rest of us will wind
up paying more if they don't. There's a good analysis of it in this week's
_The Economist_. They say that the bailout will cost about $300 billion,
and, if it works, will save the rest of us about $1.2 trillion.

Gee, wonder if the writer has ties to the banking industry? Just pointing
out that it may sound good but are you sure?

How sure do you want? Like the financial publications, _The Economist_ is
probably more frank, expert, and objective than any of the general press.
They're economically conservative, but they play it straight. Big money
doesn't like to be jerked around.

You'll find similar analyses from the other major financial and economics
sources, including Barron's and Bloomberg. I think that John Carroll or
someone who follows them will tell you that they're nothing like the general
press. Among the good ones are the reporting, but not the editorials, in the
Wall Street Journal, and the financial pages of the New York Times. BTW, the
Times has a very good analysis in tomorrow's (Sunday's) Business section,
titled "What created this monster?" It's free online.



That's why we're bailing them. But Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury
Dept.
are already working on new regulations for the unregulated part of the
finance industry, and, particulalry if we have Dems running the show next
year, they'll probably clamp down like there's no tomorrow. Likely they'll
clamp down *too* hard.


You seem to be endorsing the idea that we are NOT responisible for our
actions.

Jesus, Wes, don't turn into another one of those guys who can't
distinguish
a few facts from an entire ideology. We have enough of those around here
already.

Ed, there is right and there is wrong. You honor your obligations to the
best of your ablitity.

Of course. When it comes to things like the state of the economy, though,
it's time to put all that aside while you figure out what's going on, and
what the consequences will be.



Focus on the facts. Forget your philosophy. When you have all the facts
and
you're able to look at them objectively, you can cook up a philisophy
about
them if you're so disposed. Right now, all the philosophies have turned to
crap. It's not the time to commit suicide for the entire economy because
you're worried about "moral hazard." The time for that has passed.

I'm not tracking you. The banks with the bad loans should not be taking
the
keys, they should be working on ways to float the loans until better
times.
The borrowers should be paying as much as they can and we ride this
monster
trying to stay clear of the ditch.

The investment banks and various funds holding these securities just got
their margins called, and they can't sell this crap to cover them. There is
no time to work on ways to keep the loans afloat. And if they go down like
dominoes, the very real fear is that they'll take the whole economy with
them. We're talking about serious depression here.


It is like a renter that doesn't have the full payment for rent so he
doesn't pay anything instead of ponying up what he has. This whole thing
seems to have a trailer trash mentality on honoring obligations.

Wes

Welcome to the new economy. How do you think people get stinking rich in the
finance business today? They're pirates.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:


These are not lower- and middle-income borrowers, but more affluent
consumers with annual incomes of $100,000 or more who are increasingly
being ensnared in the home mortgage crisis.

People in all income categories "are facing the shock of new payments
that can be twice as much as previous ones," said Susan M. Wachter,
professor of business and a real estate specialist at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Nor will falling interest rates help most of these homeowners, as
their low initial payments skyrocket and the worth of their homes
erodes, said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy at
the Consumer Federation of America.

These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped
out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took
advantage
of them? Greed. It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to the
undoing of many. The banks are blameless.

Wes

It's clear that you don't understand why it's wrong to let all these people
go into foreclosure. The only way you'll get it is if a bunch of them
foreclose in your neighborhood. After you see what that does to the value of
your home, if you have one, then maybe you'll see why it's not such a dandy
idea to let millions of home go into foreclosure at the same time all over
the country. What it'll do to home values across the country won't be
pretty. Maybe, and I say maybe you'll get it when a house on your street is
foreclosed on. But probably not.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions
flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at
a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.


Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. I just do not
see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions.

You seem to be endorsing the idea that we are NOT responisible for our
actions.

Wes

You seem to be in the dark about the idea of scale. What you are talking
about is small scale. I'm talking about large scale. There is a big
difference between the two. If something happens and people don't pay their
mortgage they should lose their property. But if the same thing happens on a
massive scale all over the country it's a different kettle of fish because
if it is as widespread as this problem is it doesn't just hurt the people
involved in the transaction. This problem is so big it is a threat to the
nation and the economy as a whole. It could do a huge amount of damage to
the entire country. Consequently, it can't be looked at as a simple case of
someone not paying their house payment. With your point of view it's lucky
for the country that you are not in a position of authority. You'd be like
Hoover in the Depression, just not getting it.

Hawke

On 2008-03-23, Wes wrote:
I'm never planning on moving. 20+ years and staying. Actually if my
property value went down, my property taxes would eventually have to drop.

People that get overjoyed about increases in the value of their primary
domicile are nuts. It costs them money.

I think that the idea that more expensive housing makes us all
collectively richer, is nuts.

i

On Mar 22, 8:13*pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Sure, on a car. Not on a house. You could have asked any broker or banker, a
year ago, what the chances were you'd get in trouble that way. They'd laugh
you out of the place.

First, they would tell you what I said above. They they'd tell you that once
you'd made two or three years of payments, you'd qualify for a fixed-rate
mortgage before the balloon came due on (what they might call) your "bridge"
loan. Then you could look at all the statistics and see that they're dead
right. Only they weren't, for the first time ever.

Okay, try this. *You buy a new house, the overall market does not go down
but when you go to refinance the banks appraiser notices a crack house next
door and doesn't think your house's market value is high enough to secure
the loan. *By your logic, the bank should forgive principle since the house
is not worth far less than when it was originally purchased.

The bank loans money, the borrower agrees to pay based on the terms of the
contract. *Doesn't matter what the market is doing, you borrowed, you owe. *

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

So if this is true...then why are the banks being bailed out by the
Feds?

Like you said...doesn't matter what the market is doing, you borrowed,
you owe.

That is unless you are Bear Stearns.

Want to explain why banks get a "Go Free" card on their making bad
loans?

TMT

On Mar 22, 8:55*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...





"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Sure, on a car. Not on a house. You could have asked any broker or banker,
a
year ago, what the chances were you'd get in trouble that way. They'd
laugh
you out of the place.

First, they would tell you what I said above. They they'd tell you that
once
you'd made two or three years of payments, you'd qualify for a fixed-rate
mortgage before the balloon came due on (what they might call) your
"bridge"
loan. Then you could look at all the statistics and see that they're dead
right. Only they weren't, for the first time ever.

Okay, try this. *You buy a new house, the overall market does not go down
but when you go to refinance the banks appraiser notices a crack house
next
door and doesn't think your house's market value is high enough to secure
the loan. *By your logic, the bank should forgive principle since the
house
is not worth far less than when it was originally purchased.

First off, I haven't said what banks should do, or what the government
should do. It's beyond my knowledge and I'm studying the subject right now

On Mar 22, 9:15*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:29*pm, Too_Many_Tools

I think you are slow to catch on...the banks have taken advantage of
you...the depositor...by lending your money with little chance of
getting it..and the interest back.

TMT

Are you insane! *The banks take advantage of you by loaning money with
little change of getting it back?

Why don't you take.advantage of me. *You can send me money, and I
promise not to pay you back.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

No I am not insane...just stating the truth.

The banks made bad loans...and are getting bailed out.

The people they loaned to are getting stuck ... and are not getting
bailed out.

And the American taxpayer is paying for the bank's greed.

TMT

On Mar 22, 9:21*pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.

Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. *I just do not see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions. *

You seem to be endorsing the idea that we are NOT responisible for our
actions.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

The government is saying that banks are not responsible for their
actions.

TMT

On Mar 22, 9:24*pm, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Nobody anticipated that. Not the experts, not the banks, and not the
government. It's a crisis because there's no way out -- except that some of
these crap mortgages were written in such a way that a home owner can just
walk out of an upside-down situation and turn the keys over to the bank,
with no further repurcussions. That amazes me, but that's what the papers
say. The brokers are calling it "key mail." You open the bank's mail, and
there are house keys in the envelopes. d8-)

You gotta be kidding me. *Any banker that wrote a contract where the
borrower can 'walk away' should be institutionalized for they are not
competent to care for themselves.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." *Dick Anthony Heller

People are walking away because they cannot pay their loans at the
levels that the banks are demanding.

They were paying the loans earlier.

The fact that the banks are forcing foreclosures to occur is a BIG
part of the problem.

TMT

On Mar 22, 9:35*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. People were making millions
flipping
all kinds of crap houses. As for ARMs, the idea is that you refinance at a
fixed rate when the time is right. Only now you can't. It didn't look to
*anyone* that such a thing was likely to happen.

Enron once looked like a sure fire deal once upon a time. *I just do not
see
why government should bail people or companies out for poor decisions.

Well, they shouldn't. The reason they are is that the rest of us will wind
up paying more if they don't. There's a good analysis of it in this week's
_The Economist_. They say that the bailout will cost about $300 billion,
and, if it works, will save the rest of us about $1.2 trillion.

That's why we're bailing them. But Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Dept.

On Mar 22, 10:47*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...





Too_Many_Tools wrote:

These are not lower- and middle-income borrowers, but more affluent
consumers with annual incomes of $100,000 or more who are increasingly
being ensnared in the home mortgage crisis.

People in all income categories "are facing the shock of new payments
that can be twice as much as previous ones," said Susan M. Wachter,
professor of business and a real estate specialist at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Nor will falling interest rates help most of these homeowners, as
their low initial payments skyrocket and the worth of their homes
erodes, said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy at
the Consumer Federation of America.

These 'more affluent' consumers presumably had access to a higher level of
education than most of those on lower rungs that had their dreams wiped
out
by the realities of finance.

How are you and your ilk going to spin this as how the banks took
advantage
of them? *Greed. *It is prevalent at all levels of income and leads to the
undoing of many. *The banks are blameless.

Wes

It's clear that you don't understand why it's wrong to let all these people
go into foreclosure. The only way you'll get it is if a bunch of them
foreclose in your neighborhood. After you see what that does to the value of
your home, if you have one, then maybe you'll see why it's not such a dandy
idea to let millions of home go into foreclosure at the same time all over
the country. What it'll do to home values across the country won't be
pretty. Maybe, and I say maybe you'll get it when a house on your street is
foreclosed on. But probably not.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct...no one understands until it happens to them.

And in my experience, especially a Republican.

I wonder how becoming homeless will affect their choice of who to vote
for this November?

TMT

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:55:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



This wouldn't have happened in the first place if the mortgage lenders
hadn't fallen all over each other to give mortgages with practically no
money down. That's bad banking. It's NOT necessarily bad borrowing.

It clearly is both bad banking and bad borrowing.

No money down mortgages (GI) have been available for decades. Property
values have definitely fluctuated both up and down during that time:
long term has been up but there have been regional short-term dips. My
house has not been a "financial performer" in terms of market
appreciation and DCFROI (discounted cash flow return on investment)
but I gotta live somewhere. Shelter is a basic need.

If a person buys a house with a mortgage they can afford, they can
still afford it even if the house value declines to negative equity
for a while -- unless they then leverage equity increase with
increasing market value to maintain absolutely all the debt they can
afford to keep up with and perhaps a bit more. This can only work in
a monotonically increasing market, and no market does that forever.

Speculating in real estate is no different than speculating in any
other market. Speculating with an asset that is one's shelter is
"smart" only if it works, really dumb if it doesn't.

Pick yer pony, take yer ride. Strut proudly when yer artful dodging
works, bleat pitifully when yer grab for the big brass ring gets ya a
face full of gravel.

This is not addressed to you personally, Ed. It's meant to be
metaphoric.

On Mar 22, 9:52*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 7:22 pm, "Ed Huntress"

Well, why don't you tell us who got it right, Dan? What crank do you
listen
to who would have told you that there was going to be a subprime mortgage
crises, provoked by a mortgage industry that was giving out ridiculous
loans, with prices dropping and buyers pulling out because of credit was
tied up by a collapse of derivatives that were collateralized by bundles
of
those subprime mortgages, rated AAA by S&P and Moody's, which every major
investment bank (except Goldman Sachs) was buying like candy and which
was
supported by the most sophisticated and most successful financial network
in

. the history of mankind?







NASA has used the same type of logic. The fact that ice falling off
the fuel tanks has not significantly damaged the heat shields ten
times in a row , does not mean that it is safe to ignore it.
The fact that housing has gone up and not declined for twenty years ,
does not mean that it can't.

Duh...thank you, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback. We've *never* had a
housing
decline like this in the history of the US.

When every one believes there is a sure fire way to make money, it
ceases to work that way.

I'll make sure to write that in my book of aphorisms.

--
Ed Huntress
You may not believe it, but I did not buy any houses with a plan on
flipping them in a few years. *My wife told me of friends of hers that
were buying houses to resell, and I told her that when housewifes are
doing things like that, it is the wrong time to do it.

Oh, I believe you. I'm cautious that way, too. But you and I are probably
more risk-averse than any serious investor, or any really successful one,
because you can't be excessively risk-averse and make out.

But we aren't talking about house-flippers who are getting in all the
trouble. Most of them are first-time buyers. They're not very sophisticated
and the mortgage lenders offered them a deal they could hardly refuse.

I *think we had a similar drop in house prices in 1929. *Even though
you say it never happened.

*I* didn't say it. Barron's, and Bloomberg, and The Economist are saying it.

In article
,
" wrote:

I think you will find that someone already said pretty much what I
said in the book
" The Madness of Crowds ". It is not a thought that is orginal with
me.

A very good book, you will have to write a new chapter in it about ARMs
and paper dollars

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:52:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

There's always a book that said everything. There's always a contrarian who
got it right. That's why contrarians write books: they only have to get it
right once, and they're famous. Everyone will forget that they got it all
wrong 99 other times.

That's what has happened with Paul Erlich of global doom books, but
the masses forget that -none- of his predictions have ever come true.
They were gloom and doom books with happy feeling endings "if we act
NOW!"


What is that word? KUMBUYA ??? :-)
...lew...